Why Thermography Is Your Best Breast Test Option

Every year when Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) comes around I am saddened and surprised that thermography hasn’t become more popular. Part of this is my mindset. I’d rather focus on breast health and ways to prevent breast cancer at the cellular level than put the emphasis on testing and retesting until you finally do find something to poke, prod, cut out, or radiate. I understand that mammography has been the gold standard for years. Doctors are the most familiar with this test, and many believe that a mammogram is the best test for detecting breast cancer early. But it’s not. Studies show that a thermogram identifies precancerous or cancerous cells earlier, produces unambiguous results — which cuts down on additional testing — and doesn’t hurt the body.

As you may know, thermography is a form of thermal (infrared) imaging. My colleague, Philip Getson, D.O. has been a medical thermographer since 1982. Dr. Getson explains how thermography works this way:

It is widely acknowledged that cancers, even in their earliest stages, need nutrients to maintain or accelerate their growth. In order to facilitate this process, blood vessels are caused to remain open, inactive blood vessels are activated, and new ones are formed through a process known as neoangiogenesis. This vascular process causes an increase in surface temperature in the affected regions, which can be viewed with infrared imaging cameras. Additionally, the newly formed or activated blood vessels have a distinct appearance, which thermography can detect.

Remember, heat is an indication that inflammation exists, and typically inflammation is present in precancerous and cancerous cells, too. It’s also present in torn muscles and ligaments as well as arthritic joints, which thermography can also detect!

Early Breast Cancer Detection and Accuracy

Today, women are encouraged to get a mammogram, so they can find their breast cancer as early as possible. The most promising aspect of thermography is its ability to spot anomalies years before mammography. Using the same ten-year study data, (Spitalier 1) researcher Dr. Getson adds:

Since thermal imaging detects changes at the cellular level, studies suggest that this test can detect activity eight to ten years before any other test. This makes it unique in that it affords us the opportunity to view changes before the actual formation of the tumor. Studies have shown that by the time a tumor has grown to sufficient size to be detectable by physical examination or mammography, it has in fact been growing for about seven years achieving more than twenty-five doublings of the malignant cell colony. At 90 days there are two cells, at one year there are 16 cells, and at five years there are 1,048,576 cells—an amount that is still undetectable by a mammogram. (At 8 years, there are almost 4 billion cells.)

Thermography’s accuracy and reliability is remarkable, too. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, a great deal of research was conducted on thermography. In 1981, Michel Gautherie, Ph.D., and his colleagues reported on a ten-year study, which found that an abnormal thermogram was ten times more significant as a future risk indicator for breast cancer than having a history of breast cancer in your family. (Gautherie 2)

With thermography as your regular screening tool, it’s likely that you would have the opportunity to make adjustments to your diet, beliefs, and lifestyle to transform your cells before they became cancerous. Talk about true prevention.

– See more at: http://www.drnorthrup.com/best-breast-cancer-screening-tests/?utm_source=9988964_A_CN&utm_medium=email&utm_content=5612&utm_campaign=email_Newsletter_Northrup_2016&utm_id=5612#sthash.98cgpyFx.dpuf

New science is proving that a simple, ancient method of cleansing the body used by Native Americans for centuries has widespread positive effects on health and can help you lose weight, lower blood pressure, reduce inflammation, enhance detoxification, and experience less joint pain. I’m talking about heat therapy—specifically, the use of infrared saunas.

Heat therapy is a significantly underutilized treatment in medicine. However, with the growing movement to find more self-directed, more natural, less invasive ways to overcome health problems and lose weight, it’s becoming more popular among the American public. And that’s a good thing! As we will see in a moment, the science bears out the use of heat as a treatment modality for a wide variety of health conditions.

Infrared saunas, in particular present an interesting and powerful opportunity for people to take advantage of the latest advances in heat therapy. These saunas, which can be installed in your home, use infrared light instead of conventional heat to bring up your body temperature. The difference is important because infrared saunas can increase your core body temperature by 2-3 degrees—enough to improve the health results you achieve as compared to conventional saunas. Most infrared saunas on the market produce only far infrared. However, a new development in the field is full-spectrum infrared. These full-spectrum infrared saunas provide all the health benefits associated with far- mid- and near infrared rays.

Over the last decade science has finally caught up with what ancient societies have realized for millennia regarding the use of heat therapy, and the evidence that’s surfacing about the benefits of regular use of saunas is impressive.

Infrared saunas help you lose weight. In a two-week study of twenty-five obese adults, body weight and body fat were reduced after daily infrared sauna treatments of 15 minutes. Interestingly, the researchers who conducted the study reported on one obese patient who couldn’t exercise due to arthritis in the knee yet lost 17.5 kg, and decreased body fat from 46 to 35 percent after 10 weeks of sauna therapy.

Infrared saunas enhance detoxification. We live in a sea of toxins as you know. Luckily there are steps we can take to more effectively remove these toxins, and the use of saunas is one powerful method for doing so. The Environmental Protection Agency has shown that sauna therapy increases excretion of heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium) and fat-soluble chemicals like PCBs, PBBs, and HCBs. In fact, toxins stored in fat can prevent you from effectively losing weight. I’ve seen this time and again in my practice: People try everything to lose weight and get healthy, but it isn’t until they detoxify their bodies that they can truly heal.

Infrared saunas reduce blood pressure. Several studies have shown that infrared sauna therapy lowers blood pressure significantly. In one study done by the University of Missouri, Kansas City subjects were randomly assigned to either a Solocarbon infrared sauna or a conventional sauna. Systolic blood pressure decreased from an average of 130.5 to 124 in those that underwent infrared sauna treatment. Those who were treated in a conventional sauna showed no statistical improvement in blood pressure.

Infrared saunas reduce complications and improve cardiac performance in heart disease patients. In addition to lowering blood pressure, infrared saunas also improve heart rate variability(HRV)—one of the key indicators of heart health. Normally, there is a subtle variability between heartbeats. When there is more variability in the beat-to-beat rhythm, your heart and nervous system are healthier. The least healthy heart rhythm has the least variability—a flat line. However, when the autonomic nervous system is in chronic stress mode, the heartbeat becomes less variable. Infrared saunas relax the body and mind, reduce autonomic nervous stimulation, and thus improve HRV. There is an infrared sauna on the market, the mPulse Series from Sunlighten, with built in biofeedback capabilities for monitoring heart rate during a sauna session. This series has intelligent technology delivering customized programs to personalize your sauna therapy.

Infrared saunas improve brain function. As I point out in The UltraMind Solution, the health and resilience of your brain function are directly related to the complexity and variability of your heart rate. What is good for your heart is good for you brain. And since infrared saunas increase the variability and health of your nervous system, that means they are a great way to improve brain function. Interestingly, one study has also shown that infrared saunas can actually improve the function of neurons that have been damaged by toxins. This is to say nothing of the relaxing effects noted above, the improvement sauna has on autonomic nervous function, and the overall increased sense of peace and well-being you experience when regularly taking saunas.

In addition to the benefits above, infrared saunas have also been shown to help blood sugar, reduce joint pain, improve your skin, and more. It’s a treatment I highly recommend and one I prescribe to patients often. I suggest you consider regular sauna therapy as well.

]]>http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/an-easy-way-to-lose-weight-lower-blood-pressure-detoxify-and-improve-your-brain-function-2/feed/0Mammograms or Thermal Imaging?http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/mammograms-or-thermal-imaging-2/
http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/mammograms-or-thermal-imaging-2/#respondThu, 08 Sep 2016 17:13:35 +0000http://lumpsbreast.com/?p=3561Breast cancer screening has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, because breast cancer is such a common disease, “and the evidence is strong that it is on the increase.” However, what good does screening do, if all it does is confirm for us that breast cancer is on the increase? Is mammography screening the best way—or even the right way—to provide healthcare for the breast? The answer, as you’ll soon read, is “No.”

Do Mammograms Reduce Mortality Rates?

While some randomized trials indicate that mammography screening reduces fatal instances of breast cancer, other respected trials indicate a non-significant reduction. Those latter trials cannot be ignored, wrote Dr. Maureen Roberts, clinical director of the Edinburgh Breast Screening Project from 1979 to 1988: “We all know that mammography is an unsuitable screening test: it is technologically difficult to perform, the pictures are difficult to interpret, it has a high false positive rate, and we don’t know how often to carry it out. We can no longer ignore the possibility that screening may not reduce mortality in women of any age, however disappointing this may be.”

Is Mammography Harmful?

Dr. Roberts then asked if mammography testing could actually be causing more harm than good. She cited the trauma of false positives and the psychological uncertainty related to non-invasive cancers. She mentioned the pressure on women to be compliant with the screening program, and the psychological fallout upon hearing a diagnosis of cancer.
Those in whom cancer is detected will not like her conclusion: “we do not know how to treat breast cancer. There is no successful treatment; different surgeons will carry out different procedures.” No one knows the best way to treat breast cancer. Roberts also says, “the currently expressed or strongly implied statement that if women attend for screening, everything will be all right, is not acceptable. Modern ideas concentrate on healthy living, rather than the search for disease.” In compelling honesty, she wrote, “I am sorry that breast screening may not be of benefit…sad to seem to be critical of the many dear and valued colleagues…But
they will recognize that I am telling the truth.” Dr. Roberts is not alone in her assessment of mammography screening. In a 2000 edition of The Lancet medical journal, Peter Gøtzsche and Ole Olsen concluded, “screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified,” in that many of the trials they reviewed were of very poor quality, and that “there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast-cancer mortality.” Their declaration ignited a “storm of debate and criticism in national media and medical journals alike” and it resulted in an “overview revisited” in the commentary section of the respected journal. That detailed assessment ended with this statement: “At present, there is no reliable evidence from large randomized trials to support screening mammography programmes.” Gøtzsche and Olsen wrote a second article for The Lancet. The abstract states this: “a Cochrane review has now confirmed and strengthened our previous findings. The review also shows that breast-cancer mortality is a misleading outcome measure. Finally, we use data supplemental to those in the Cochrane review to show that screening leads to more aggressive treatment.”

Mammography Screening is “Not Justifiable”

Dr. Charles Wright and Dr. C. Barber Mueller also wrote an article for The Lancet, stating in their research summary that “early trials of screening mammography, reporting 30% relative reduction in mortality…led to strong professional and public demand,” but “There has been little publicity about the subsequent trials showing no significant benefit in any age group, or about the harm and costs associated with screening mammography.” In fact, to achieve only one less death, there would have to be 7086 screenings according to one study, 63,264 screenings according to another study, and an infinite number of screenings according to a third study of this kind. About 5% of screening mammograms are positive or suspicious, and of these 80-93% are false positives, causing much unnecessary anxiety and even unnecessary procedures such as surgery. False reassurance by negative mammography occurs in 10-15% of women with breast cancer that will manifest clinically within a year. They calculate the “mean annual cost per life ‘saved’ is around $1.2 million.” Their conclusion is this: “Since the benefit achieved is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous, we suggest that public funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable.”ix Not only that, a comparison study of 100 women receiving both mammography screening anf showed that infrared screening, or thermal imaging, was more accurate. An “84% sensitivity rate of mammography alone was increased to 95% when infrared imaging was added.” This indicates that thermal imaging detects “vascular and metabolic changes,” rather than simply tumor size. In other words, it detects tumors in earlier stages.

Harmful Radiation

Peter Leando, in his report The Role of Mammography in Breast Health: an Overdue Paradigm Shift, notes the increasing evidence “relating to the risks inherent in using mammography for breast screening…The risks from radiation produced by mammography are far greater than the proponents of this test are aware of or have been promoting to women…mammography X-rays use a low energy form of ionising radiation which causes greater biologic damage than the high energy X-ray…The radiation used by mammography is almost 5 times more effective at causing cancer.” Leando notes that the “United States is the only country that routinely screens premenopausal women by mammography. The U.S. also extends its screening practice by taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in postmenopausal women. That
contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two or three years.” Leando’s article included two very disturbing quotes: “The capacity of ionizing radiation to produce breast cancer has been repeatedly confirmed,” and “the strongest evidence for a particular initiating factor in breast cancer is that for irradiation…Evidence that other carcinogens…initiate breast cancer development is extremely limited.” A report titled State of the Evidence, published by Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action, stated the following: “In 2005, the National Toxicology Program classified X-radiation and gamma radiation as known human carcinogens. Radiation is a mutagen as well as a carcinogen. Radiation may even enhance the ability of hormones or other chemicals to cause cancer…Female breast cancer is the best-quantified radiation-related cancer.”
“There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation…radiation damage to genes is cumulative…A typical mammogram of .2 rads would equal the radiation dose received by the breast in 660 hours of flying, not a single trip.” In response to a study reported in The Lancet that found no significant reduction in breast-cancer mortality due to mammograms, Benjamin Djulbegovic raised this concern: “False-negative screens might lead to inappropriate reassurance and delays in diagnosis, whereas false positives might result in unnecessary biopsies and additional imaging studies. However, the main harms associated with screening mammography relate to potential death from radiation-induced breast cancer. Although the overall reduction in death from breast cancer during the 10-15 years’ follow-up in trials of screening mammography is clear, the anticipated peak for radiation-induced breast cancer occurs women 10-20 years after exposure, and risk might remain increased throughout a woman’s life.” The question must be asked: Can it be that the very procedure used to detect cancer is causing it? Is mammography a self-fulfilling methodology?

Thermography: A Safer Alternative

There are other breast-testing options that are more effective and safe. This article’s focus is on thermography, but other methods will be briefly mentioned, too. Thermography, also known as thermal imaging or infrared imaging, detects breast abnormalities earlier than mammograms can; is risk-free, pain-free and totally non-invasive; does not involve ionizing radiation or injections; is FDA-approved; costs less than mammograms; and provides rapid results.
Thermography, as used in breast exams, records thermal (heat or cold) patterns in the skin temperature that may be normal or that may indicate pain, injury, disease, inflammation, or other abnormality. It records those findings in a color-coded scan of the body area being imaged. It also notes and records temperature differentials or asymmetries between similar regions on either side of the body. Then, if abnormal heat patterns are detected as related to a specific region of interest or function, clinical correlation and further investigation can lead to diagnosis and treatment. In industrial use, thermal imaging detects areas on homes or businesses where insulation is sparse. Hunters and military personnel use infrared scopes to detect presence and track motion, simply by tracking the heat given off by humans, animals, or missiles. Fortunately, it has a healthcare-related use, as well. Some physicians promote it as a “simpler and less expensive complement to mammography.” They know infrared imaging’s detection and accuracy rate exceeds that of mammograms and would recommend mammography only if the thermography indicated pathology or issues needing further investigation. In that case, mammography would be useful to identify the location and boundaries of the tumor or mass within the breast.

How It’s Done

Thermal imaging is completely harmless, painless, and non-invasive. The client sits or stands before a thermal imaging camera, bares the body area to be scanned, and the results of several viewing angles are seen immediately on a computer screen. Those results are forwarded to a healthcare professional who compares those finding to earlier scans on record, if any, and also studies and interprets the varying patterns and temperature differentials. The color-coded results, the written interpretation and explanations, and any recommendations are forwarded to the client within a few days. While many thermal imaging practices urge a yearly scan, as do mammogram screening programs, each woman must determine the frequency with which thermal imaging is done for her, since the cumulative cancer-promoting effect of ionizing-radiation mammograms is a factor. The fewer the mammograms a woman has had, the better. Without radiation, the breast is more likely to remain healthy, assuming the diet and lifestyle is intelligent and the bras fit well, without underwire, tight elastic, or heat-concentrating padding.The Difference Between Mammography and Thermal Imaging
On top of the radiation, compression, cost, and psychological issues caused by mammography, there is another thing that differentiates it from thermal imaging. The difference is in what the two detection systems look for: “Mammography and ultrasound depend primarily on structural distinction and anatomical variation of the tumor from the surrounding breast tissue…Infrared imaging detects minute temperature variations related to vascular flow and can demonstrate abnormal vascular patterns associated with the initiation and progression of tumors.” In other words, thermal imaging can detect tumorous activity as it begins to develop a blood supply to sustain its growth. Any increased heat from a localized blood supply would suggest pathology. Yet for mammography, the tumor has to have formed sufficient physical mass and size to be detected. “Major abnormal findings on infrared range from significant vascular asymmetry to vascular ‘anarchy,’ consisting of unusual vessels that form clusters, loops and abnormal branching. Focal increases in temperature from 1o to 3o may be significant when compared with temperatures at the contralateral site [other side of body].” Thermography is unique in its ability to show “physiological changes and metabolic processes, filling the gap in clinical diagnosis where anatomical tests such as X-ray, CT, ultrasound and MRI leave off…The reports can provide objective results relating to physiology of the body and breast, including developing pathology, angiogenesis, and inflammatory activity that justifies further
investigation.” Dr. John McDougall comments that by the time mammography detects cancers, “they have been growing 8 to 14 years—by this time if the lump detected is truly cancer…then the disease has spread to the rest of the body and is unreachable by surgery or radiation.” He further states, “In many cases mammography detects a condition called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This is not cancer, but when detected it is still treated aggressively with surgery and radiation. DCIS rarely turns into a life-threatening cancer. Thus, for women for whom a cure is possible (those with DCIS) early detection and treatment are not necessary, while for women for whom cure is necessary (those with invasive cancer), this goal is rarely possible because the disease has already spread beyond the boundaries reached by local treatment (radiation and surgery).” At that point, the only treatment usually recommended is what McDougall calls “toxic chemotherapy,” which impacts not only the cancer site but also the entire body.

Still, Mammograms have some Benefit

Mammograms should not be entirely avoided. If abnormalities appear in a thermography or other tests, mammography and other radiation technologies such as the CAT scan are necessary. Used in conjunction with a thermal scan, mammography’s detection rate
increases from 84% to 95%.xxv Mammography identifies the location and boundaries of the tumor or mass within the breast for purposes of biopsy, lumpectomy, mastectomy, or radiation therapy. Mammograms also provide crucial feedback as to cancer growth or reduction during treatment, even when non-invasive methods are used.A Better Way
McDougall cites a study entitled Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations by Joann Elmore. It found over a period of ten years of screening, one-third of women had abnormal test results requiring additional evaluation, even though no breast cancer was present. McDougall wrote, “That’s a lot of testing and surgery following an x-ray examination that has questionable benefits, even for women over 50.”
Rejecting the orthodox opinion that mammography is the best therapy available to detect breast cancer, Dr. McDougall instead argues for prevention: “There is something better for preventing breast cancer, which is an enthusiastic recommendation to change their diet.” McDougall is only one of many voices promoting dietary and lifestyle changes to prevent or recover from cancer.
Obviously, the likelihood of recovery is dependent upon several factors, yet many of them are within an individual’s control. For example, one massive and outstanding study into diet’s effect on disease and mortality—the China Study—clinically demonstrated that tumor growth can be “turned on and off “by the addition or removal of animal-based foods from the diet, and that the ingestion of them starts the disease process. The results applied not only to cancer but other diseases, as well, such as diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and obesity. While an intelligent diet, exercise, sunshine, water, rest, fresh air, and faith are critical to overall health, including breast health, many women should not ignore any history of mammograms. Radiation damage in mammograms is unavoidable and cumulative, and it would be wise to check breast health periodically with thermal imaging.Where, and How Much?
Although the FDA approves thermography, insurance coverage is quite spotty at best. The cost in the Mid-Atlantic area is usually $150 for a specific area (like breasts or pelvic area), and more for a full-body scan. Establishing a baseline image is a good idea, too, for future comparative interpretations. Find practitioners listed by state (also international sites) at thermologyonline.org. We can hope scanning locations will increase as thermal imaging becomes better known.

Other Options for Detecting Cancer

Another method of detecting cancer anywhere in the body is the AMAS test from Oncolab in Boston. Their website reports, “Oncolab provides the FDA-approved AMAS blood test, helping health care professionals to diagnose cancer, and to follow up during treatment. In studies of more than 8,000 patients, the AMAS® Test was found to be 95% accurate and unique for its diverse use as a diagnostic tool regarding all non-terminal cancers. In some cases, the AMAS® test detected cancer 1 to 19 months before clinical detection. These tests indicate with great accuracy (99% specificity and 95% sensitivity) if there is cancer active anywhere within your body.” Also, the HCG Urine Immunoassay Test is available from the Navarro Medical Clinic (847.359.3634 or efnavmed@gmail.com).
We hold out a faint hope that thermal imaging will be part of the cost-saving changes that are likely to be made in this nation’s healthcare programs. But even if the cost does not change, there are more than enough reasons to include thermal imaging in your personal healthcare protocol. Increasingly, women are finding the cost to be worth it in terms of peace of mind and preventive care. If you enjoyed this article, share it with a friend. Check out our health site, Amazing HealthTM, for more information.

]]>http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/mammograms-or-thermal-imaging-2/feed/0Fall into health and wellness!http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/fall-into-health-and-wellness/
http://lumpsbreast.com/2016/09/fall-into-health-and-wellness/#respondThu, 08 Sep 2016 15:12:47 +0000http://lumpsbreast.com/?p=3218Happy fall! It’s that special time of year again, the changing of seasons and new beginnings. It is a great time to “fall” into health and wellness.

New scanning dates have been added to the calendar. Call to schedule an appointment!

Did you know the FarInfrared Sauna can burn up to 600 calories in 30 minutes? Call for more information and to schedule your detoxing and weight loss session today! http://lumpsbreast.com/services/farinfrared-sauna/

If you aren’t feeling your 100% best, schedule an appointment to visit the home office for a Compass scan and vitamin consult.

In the 1930’s, a bone disease caused by vitamin D deficiency called rickets, was recognized as a serious health problem. It is the reason many of us grew up with mothers who constantly nagged us to drink our milk.

To combat rickets, most of the country’s milk supply was fortified with vitamin D, resulting in near eradication of the disease.

For decades vitamin D was associated only with bone-building calcium and healthy strong teeth. Today, we are beginning to understand just how important vitamin D really is to our overall health and that many of us are not getting enough of this vitally important vitamin.

In recent years, there has been growing concern that vitamin D deficiency has become widespread, affecting young and old alike.

Vitamin D can influence as many as 2,000 genes in the body. A number of factors can determine the body’s ability to manufacture an adequate supply of vitamin D, age and skin color among them.

Through exposure to direct sunlight, our bodies produce vitamin D naturally. Researchers have suggested the evolution of our environment and lifestyle – cloud cover, pollution, use of sunscreens, and working longer hours indoors – are all factors contributing to vitamin D deficiency.

Foods rich in vitamin D are limited. Vitamin D is found in some fish – like salmon, tuna, mackerel, cod liver oil – egg yokes and in fortified foods such as milk, yogurt, some breads cereals and juice drinks. Dietary supplements are commonly used to help us get the recommended daily dose, although most multivitamins contain vitamin D2, which is considered inferior to D3.

Along with bone disorders like osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency can increase the susceptibility of developing a number of serious diseases including: several cancers, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, hypertension, diabetes, periodontal disease, depression and autoimmune disorders.

Last August, a nationwide study found insufficient levels of vitamin D in 70 percent of U.S. children, making them vulnerable to a multitude of health problems.

Fortunately, vitamin D deficiency is a problem that can be easily treated. Studies have found that maintaining adequate levels of vitamin D can aid in preventing many serious diseases including some cancers, depression, respiratory tract infections, colds and the seasonal influenza.

Studies comparing high and low levels of vitamin D in seniors have shown a 33 percent decreased risk of developing cardiovascular disease and a 55 percent reduction in type 2 diabetes in individuals with higher levels of vitamin D.

After reviewing multiple studies, researchers at the University of California at San Diego have suggested that one-half of breast cancer cases and two-thirds of colorectal cancer cases could be prevented by taking 2,000 international units of vitamin D3 daily and spending 10 to 15 minutes in the sun each day, weather permitting.

Last week a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found “vitamin D(3) supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenzaA, especially in specific subgroups of schoolchildren” and a secondary observation suggesting “asthmatic children on placebo had six times more asthma attacks than did children on vitamin D.”

According to current guidelines by the Food and Nutrition Board, the daily adequate intake level of vitamin D recommended for children birth to 18 years and people 19 to 50 is 200 international units (IU). 400 IU recommended for men and women 51 to 70 and 600 IU for anyone over 70. However many experts are now convinced that these recommendation are too low. There are also concerns that some individuals, who meet the recommended daily dose of vitamin D, may be having difficulty with absorption.

Recognizing the seriousness of this health threat, last year experts published an editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition expressing the “urgent need” to raise the recommneded adequate intake amount of vitamin D. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recently doubled its guidelines and now recommends 400 IU per day in supplement form for infants, children and teens.

Recently, respected author and integrative medicine expert, Dr. Andrew Weil, announced he was revising his recommendation of 1,000 IU per day to 2,000 IU per day based on the accumulation of “clinical evidence” supporting the higher dosage. Click here for additional information about vitamin D.

It is important to ask your doctor to check the vitamin D levels of every member of your family and make this test part of your family’s annual physical.

If you’re a mom who is breastfeeding, knowing your levels assures that both you and baby have optimal levels of the crucial vitamin. And if your child has special health care needs, like cancer, autism or asthma, or if they don’t have dairy or other vitamin D-supplemented drinks, it is especially important to follow their levels throughout the year. Your doctor can order a basic 25-hydroxy D level from any commercial laboratory. According to many integrative practitioners, for optimal health, your vitamin D levels should measure between 50 – 80 for all ages.

Identifying and effectively treating vitamin D deficiency could decrease the risk of developing many of the illnesses plaguing our society today.

Deirdre Imus is the Founder and President of The Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology® at Hackensack University Medical Center and Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer. Deirdre is the author of four books, including three national bestsellers. She is a frequent speaker on green living and children’s health issues, and is a contributor to foxnewshealth.com. For more information, go to www.dienviro.com

In view of the recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations concerning new guidelines for having mammograms, some vital information for women needs to be presented. The new guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations.

It has always been known that mammograms carry a significant risk of causing and spreading breast cancer, although this has largely been ignored by mainstream medicine. They can cause breast cancer through repeated irradiation of the breasts and spread cancer by the fracturing of the fibrous capsule surrounding the tumor through compression of the breasts.

A 1999 meta-analysis, “Is Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography Justifiable?,” was published in The Lancet, the United Kingdom’s premier medical journal, in 2000. It said, “Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified.” This study showed that “for every 1,000 females having mammograms over a 12-year period, the life of one was saved, while the total number of deaths increased by six.” The United States continued to screen with mammography until the new recommendations appeared in the Nov. 17 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Many women are asking themselves, “What should I do now?” The answer is simple: thermography, or digital infrared thermal imaging. This is a true “screening” test that is absolutely 100 percent safe, since it does not require contact with the breasts or use ionizing radiation. It has been approved by the FDA for breast cancer screening since 1982.

Thermography employs an infrared camera that measures the physiology of the breast, not the structures within the breast, as does mammography. The physiology is function rather than structure, more specifically inflammation. Inflammation at any tissue depth will be recorded by the sympathetic fibers in the neurological supply of nerves to that area. This neural information will then be processed through the central nervous system, which will then cause a sympathetic (automatic) response in the area of the skin corresponding to the affected site. Thermographically, the area of hyperthermia seen at the surface of the skin is due to a decrease of sympathetic motor tone (reduced sympathetic function) allowing increased blood flow through the postganglionic gates serving that area. And, all this happens before the presence of a tumor.

In addition, thermography can pick up breast disease eight to 10 years earlier than mammography can pick up a tumor. This happens long before tumor formation, whereas a tumor of a rather large size must be present for mammography to be effective. The bottom line is thermography is preventive, and mammography is no more than “early detection” of an already present tumor.

If any further studies are required for diagnosis, breast ultrasound and breast MRI are the tests of choice, since they are completely safe and do not employ radiation.

Women 21 or older should screen for cancer by doing breast self-examination, clinical breast examination annually and at each doctor’s visit, and thermography.

Once upon a time, thermography was a secret weapon. Its heat-sensing ability helped the military flush out adversaries hiding by night and led missiles to their targets. People trapped in burning buildings, lost at sea or in snowdrifts, could be rescued because their body temperature showed up as thermal images. So far, so dramatic, but when the technology was released into the public domain, 1960s physicians leapt on thermography’s potential as an equally potent life-saver in the medical sphere: cancerous tissues emit more infra-red heat than healthy tissue, so here, it seemed, was a surefire way of detecting tumours.

Zeal, unfortunately, ran ahead of clinical trials, which at the time were carried out using ex-military and industrial equipment. Thermography fell out of favour for many years but good ideas find their own right time: in the past decade thermography scanning has been re-introduced and refined in tune with greater understanding of physiology and advances in computer technology. It is now routinely used in many areas of mainstream medicine (including rheumatology, neurology, pain clinics and vascular-related dysfunction). But so far it’s been most enthusiastically embraced by the holistic health world, where its value as an extra diagnostic tool for breast disease is seen as ground-breaking:

Thermography’s key asset is that it seems to spot active pre-cancerous breast signs some six to eight years before any palpable lump appears. This may well be in time for wise patients to alter their lifestyle and so modify their health, reversing the earliest changes. Speedy (the whole procedure is over in 15 minutes), safe (there’s no exposure to radiation) thermography is also non-invasive (so there’s no unpleasant compression and the patient sits in a small cosy room several feet from the scanner). So could thermography be the new secret weapon in the battle against breast cancer? Could it help women avoid unnecessary mammograms and reduce exposure to harmful radiation? Could it lead the way beyond screening mammography which, on its own, only detects breast disease that is already well developed enough to be seen with x-ray? We already know that thermography works for young women where mammography is contra-indicated because their breast tissue is too dense to “read”. Given the sharp rise in breast cases among younger women, this simple screening system would be hot news indeed.

The picture – for young women especially – looks good, and women would naturally wish thermography to take over from mammography because it is so simple, painless and radiation free. But Dr Peter Leando, founder and Managing Director of Meditherm, the US firm producing high specificity medical thermal scanners cautions against seeing thermography as a stand-alone diagnostic miracle: “Thermography is very much an extra, not an alternative breast screening tool” he explains, “and I stress that we are not in competition with mammography or taking on the same job. Thermography works best in clinical evaluation as an adjunct to mammography and ultrasound: a study at the Ville Marie Institute in Canada found thermography to have an 83 per cent detection rate as opposed to mammography’s 84 per cent. When combined, however the two services reached 95 per cent accuracy.”

A thermal scan can provide additional information about the body, but it does a different job from mammogram or ultrasound which test structure and anatomy. Thermography is a test, instead, of function and physiology and its overriding purpose in specialist breast screening, says Peter “is to monitor breast physiology and track changes over time. A first study is not really designed to identify any suspicious findings (though of course any patient would immediately be referred to her physician for further clinical investigation if worrying signs did emerge). The real purpose is to establish a base line – a thermal fingerprint, if you like, of the breast physiology that is normal for that particular patient. Everyone has a vascular structure and anatomy that’s particular to them, so what we are trying to establish in every case is whether this thermal fingerprint is stable, so we re-scan after the first three months to monitor for changes that might give concern. Thereafter women are followed up annually.”

All thermologists – the medical doctors trained to “read” thermal scans just as radiologists read the x-ray pictures radiographers have taken – are highly trained to look for patterns particular to various breast conditions. These may present as asymmetry – where the colour pattern differs in one breast from the other – though repeat monitoring could also evaluate this as normal for that particular woman. “Comparing right side to left, and different areas of the breast,” says Peter “we are looking for temperature differentials and particularly patterns that may be suspicious. But even if they do change over time, these differences could also relate to fibrocystic changes, and thermal ‘hotspots’ could simply reflect nerve irritation.”

Thermography, Peter points out, is not the appropriate first-line service for any woman with known breast cancer: “Mammography is more accurate for later stage cancer or for anyone with a palpable lump, although the thermal image can help pinpoint where the cancer is most active, and therefore act as a useful guide for more targeted mammography. Thermography only enables us to look at the activity of that lump and see if it’s very vascular, indicating angiogenesis or an active blood supply “feeding” the tumour.

Thermal scanning can’t give the information a mammogram provides in terms of size, density and order of the lump. It doesn’t provide what pathology can; it’s purely a test of physiology. It can’t assess whether a lump is attached to the surrounding tissue, if it’s rough or smooth, filled with fluid or a denser, more solid mass. So much is involved in a diagnosis of cancer. But when thermography does produce positive findings, it justifies the more invasive tests and it does give mammography something to look for and so aids detection.

Thermography really comes into its own as preventative screening before a woman ever has a scare or is called for routine NHS mammography at 50. Although the thermal scan colour images produced look very straightforward, most women wanting the bottom line about breast health would not immediately grasp what they are seeing: “What the thermal image reflects” Peter explains, “is skin blood flow. We don’t see any organs, any depth into the body or any conducted heat from deeper structures or underlying inflammation. Any thermal patterns we do see reflect the body’s surface temperature as a neural response to whatever is going on beneath, which could be inflammation, lymph congestion or angiogenesis. Thermography works because the skin, as an organ, is totally under the control of sympathetic nerve function and thermography provides a snapshot of the body’s response on the skin surface to any disease or injury.” For young women who are wisely health-conscious or, at the other end of the spectrum, concerned about the effects of lifestyle habits like smoking or drinking, thermography clearly fills a gap in the standard diagnostic screening process.

As it’s non-invasive, patients can self-refer, yet come away with a report that then becomes part of their medical record. If thermography shows cause for concern, then it’s helpful for a young woman to have something tangible to show her doctor, who might otherwise dismiss her as one of the worried well. Peter Leando says his thermography service regularly picks up patients where a slight change registers during the three months between initial scan and follow up. “Sometimes mammography is negative nonetheless, and it can take up to another year before what we first identify becomes dense enough for mammography to identify. It also takes quite a long time before biopsy can verify the finding because you have to have some physical calcification or cell growth to get a needle into.”

Most women in this waiting state would rather not sit back and do nothing. And those wishing to do all they can to help themselves, find their way to holistic health practitioners like Dr Shamim Daya in Harley Street. Shamim (who explains that she left general practice because “there was too much emphasis on symptomatic treatment and not enough on the root cause of the disease process”) will see the situation as a wake-up call for any such patient in her care:

“I ask a lot of questions about women’s lifestyle and generally find that they urgently need to clean up their act – to cut out toxic drinks, drink more water, improve their diet, introduce an exercise programme. The aim is to minimise the toxic load that is primarily affecting the liver and creating lymph congestion. For slightly older women in the perimenopause, hormone imbalances increase stress on the body. It’s common to find that these women have a mouthful of mercury fillings, which also increases the toxic load. If the lymph congestion is pronounced, I would prescribe some herbal/homeopathic ‘drainage’ remedies as well as suggesting that she drank more water and took exercise. I’d ask ‘Have you done a bowel cleanse with herbal capsules recently?’ This multi-factorial approach is intended to get toxic waste out of your system as quickly as possible – that’s what the breasts are trying to tell me.”

Shamim regularly sees women in their twenties who are already at risk from smoking and drinking habits that put a strain on key organs including the liver. Her message to them cuts straight to the chase: “Please don’t wait till your thirties, when you have a family and a drastic diagnosis like breast cancer is the last thing you need.” She is quietly confident that indications of early breast damage can be reversed, “although in my experience thermography doesn’t pick up a problem that will go away on its own. That’s why we monitor. The importance of follow-up scanning is to check for the progress of disease or its reversal, provided my recommendations are followed. If things aren’t improving as we would hope, then it may be necessary to take a more aggressive approach to reduce the toxic load, adding in specialist infrared saunas, correcting any underlying hormonal imbalances using bio-identical (natural) hormones and carefully supervised removal of mercury fillings together with liver-supporting remedies.

“Obviously we can’t force women to change – we can only advise and leave the responsibility to them. Thermography is a great tool for giving women choices and for many it’s a great motivator for change. My resident thermographer suggested screening to her own daughter, who seemed impervious to warnings about booze and fags. Motivated by her aunt’s recent breast cancer diagnosis, this young woman came along – and was shocked enough by what she saw on screen to change her lifestyle almost overnight.”

Thus far the NHS shows no sign of embracing thermography So, sadly, almost all thermographic breast screening is paid for privately: “But it’s no more expensive than a takeaway coffee a day” says Dr Daya “We charge Â£185 for the first scan, including a three month follow up. An annual scan is Â£150 thereafter.” Sherrill Sellman, (one of icon’s Icons and author of Hormone Heresy) has described the thermal scanner as “the most neglected piece of apparatus for female wellbeing”. Cost wise, it is relatively modest – around Â£20,000 would buy a local Health Authority the whole kit – camera, scanner computer, all the relevant software plus training for two technicians. You could say that thermography also has the royal seal of approval, having been used to scan the four elegant legs of the late Queen Mother’s racehorses at Lambourn, Berks! Thermal imaging is very good for pain assessment and for picking up nerve damage and muscle atrophy.

However promising, the future of thermography in two-legged health will take its time to unfold. “Medical developments are always very, very slow” says Peter. “But breast screening will hopefully progress to include more physiological assessment and a combined approach using the different techniques for optimum results and early detection.” Of the 600 Meditherm scanners worldwide, about half are used predominantly in breast screening – 200 of them in the US. In the first year of thermal scanning, one in 30 women presents with positive findings across the age range from 25-75. That’s one more woman who can seek early help and thank thermography for providing an extra weapon in the war against cancer.

]]>http://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/the-secret-weapon-in-breast-cancer-detection/feed/0Why You Need More Vitamin Dhttp://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/why-you-need-more-vitamin-d-2/
http://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/why-you-need-more-vitamin-d-2/#respondMon, 17 Jan 2011 11:00:45 +0000http://lumpsbreast.com/?p=769A few years ago, vitamin D was nothing more than calcium’s wingman, a secondary nutrient that helped the bone-building mineral make its move from the belly to the bloodstream and eventually plant itself in the skeleton. Well, no offense to C, but new research suggests that vitamin D may be one of the best vitamins of all for your body. The lab guys have uncovered up to 2,000 different genes—roughly one-sixth of the human genome—that are regulated by the nutrient. That means almost everything your body does relies on it.

“It affects cell death and proliferation, insulin production, and even the immune system,” says Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D., director of the vitamin D, skin, and bone research laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center.

Translation: Low vitamin D will result in your body working far below its potential. And you’re probably not getting anywhere near the right amount. Here’s why you’ll be hearing a lot more about it and how you can score what you need to avoid a vitaimin D deficiency and make your body function at its absolute max.

Nutrition’s New MVP

What’s most remarkable about vitamin D is the sheer number of health issues it’s been linked to. In the past few years, studies have shown that a lack of the vitamin may be the primary culprit in depression, heart disease, pregnancy problems, birth defects, skin and other cancers, and multiple sclerosis.

Even if you don’t suffer from any of these conditions, getting more D may still be what the doctor ordered. “Many of my patients report a dramatic improvement in their feeling of overall well-being after they increase their vitamin D levels,” Holick says. And a number of experts, including those from the Harvard School of Public Health, have urged the government to raise its recommended daily amount of vitamin D for adults from 200 IU to at least 1,000 IU, possibly more.

Why We’re D-ficient

According to a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, experts believe that up to 77 percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient (defined as having blood levels of less than 30 nanograms per milliliter).
So why do we come up so short, especially since vitamin D is one of the few vitamins our bodies can actually make? Sunlight converts a cholesterol-like substance naturally found in the skin into D. Problem is, thanks to UV rays and skin cancer, soaking up sun to make more D would do you more harm than good. For your skin to make enough, you’d need direct midday summer sunlight on a huge portion of your body for 15 minutes a day—risking serious sun damage.

Besides, it wouldn’t help much, Holick says. If you live north of Atlanta, it’s impossible to get enough D from sunlight between October and March, no matter how exposed you are. And it’s tougher for people of color to make D—the melanin in dark skin decreases vitamin D production by up to 90 percent.

To make matters worse, D is missing from the food we eat, says Beth Kitchin, M.S., R.D., assistant professor of nutrition sciences and patient educator in the Osteoporosis Treatment and Prevention Clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Only certain kinds of fish and fortified dairy have enough D to brag about, and it would be hard to consume enough of both in one day to get 1,000-plus IU.

Easy to Swallow

There’s a simple way to get your D up without baking in the sun. It’s not often that nutrition experts say it’s better to get a vitamin from a pill than from food, but D is an exception. “In this case, supplements are the easiest, cheapest, and safest way to make sure you’re covered,” says Laura Armas, M.D., assistant professor of endocrinology and a researcher in the Osteoporosis Research Center at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

Can you OD on it? It’s possible, but extremely unlikely. Vitamin D is fat-soluble, which means you won’t pee out the excess as you would a water-soluble vitamin like C. This used to worry experts, who thought that D could easily build up to toxic levels. But further study has found that our bodies can handle a lot more than previously understood. “You’d have to ingest 10,000 IU every day for six months before you’d even begin to approach problem levels,” Holick says. It’s much more likely you’re not getting enough, he says. A few ways to get your D intake up to par:

• Take a daily multivitamin or a vitamin D supplement that provides at least 1,000 IU. In addition, Holick says, drink two glasses of skim milk per day.

• When buying supplements or fortified foods, make sure the label reads “D3.” This is the same type the skin makes, but some companies still use D2, a plant-based form of the vitamin that the body doesn’t metabolize as easily.

• Get your blood levels measured, especially if you have a family history of heart disease, cancer, or depression. If you are extremely low, your doctor might recommend higher doses of D.

Thermography has been used successfully for breast screening for over 30 years. It offers women safe, accurate screening for breast cancer without radiation. There is no compression, which can harm delicate breast tissue or rupture augmentation implants. In his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, Dr. John Goffman states that, “three quarters of the current annual incident of breast cancer, in the U.S., is caused by earlier ionizing radiation primarily from medical sources”. Could Mammography be causing the disease it was designed to detect? The American Cancer Society shows Mammography having a 40% false negatives and 80% false positives rate. In comparison the Pasteur Institute’s research shows Thermography at 9% for false negative and false positive. Thermography is clearly a better option for general screening using Mammograms as a fall back.

Three infrared images are taken before and after the patient places their hands in cold water for one minute. This causes a constriction in the vascular system helping to distinguish suspicious hot areas that are just an inflammation from hot areas indicating neo-angiogenesis (the blood supply that feeds a tumor). Benign tumors, such as fiber-adenoma cyst, show up cold and are easily distinguished from the blood supply that feeds a cancerous tumor, which shows up as hot. This avoids the unnecessary biopsy ordered with Mammograms from suspicious fiber adenoma cysts. Infrared cameras can see through soft tissue and muscles but not behind the chest cavity or abdominal wall.

A qualified Thermologist should interpret the study and provide a written report. Seek a qualified Thermographer with certification from American Academy of Thermology. They should follow the guidelines of having the patient stand unclothed on the upper body in a cold room about 68 degrees for 5 minutes before their images are taken. The written report should indicate abnormal hyperthermic (hot) and hypothermic (cold) features and note the results of this autonomic (cold water) challenge. The cost of a Thermography may range from $200 to $350.

Thermography is in the truest sense a preventative technique of screening the breast. It can see changes in the breast up to 10 years before a tumor is detectable by skilled palpation or Mammograms. By using proper nutritional protocols, nutritional supplements, maintaining a healthy diet, balancing hormones and using natural rather than synthetic hormones it is possible to reverse early signs of breast disease.

Today women are more informed and are making their own choices about their health care. Many are choosing Thermography for the lack of compression, absence of radiation and increased accuracy. They are choosing bio-identical as opposed to synthetic hormones for menopause. They are opting for lumpectomy instead of radical mastectomy when possible. They are choosing nutritional supplementation to build the immune system instead of chemotherapy and radiation. We cannot blame doctors for not being holistic; they are doing their best to treat within the scope of their practice, as they have been trained. We encourage women to become better informed of their options so as to make intelligent decisions. With knowledge we can replace fear.

]]>http://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/thermography-for-early-breast-cancer-detection/feed/0Vitamin D Benefits a Range of Respiratory Conditionshttp://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/vitamin-d-benefits-a-range-of-respiratory-conditions/
http://lumpsbreast.com/2011/01/vitamin-d-benefits-a-range-of-respiratory-conditions/#respondFri, 14 Jan 2011 11:00:47 +0000http://lumpsbreast.com/?p=765Individuals who suffer from poor lung health may benefit from a vitamin D test, as evidence continues to stack up showing that the nutrient improves a range of lung conditions.

Earlier this week, a study published in the journal Chest found that patients with higher vitamin D levels were less likely to develop potentially deadly autoimmune lung conditions. Now, a new investigation published in the journal The Lancet indicates that vitamin D may help individuals recover from tuberculosis (TB).

For the study, researchers from the London School of Medicine and Dentistry analyzed a group of tuberculosis patients. Half were given dietary supplements containing vitamin D while the rest were given a placebo. The researchers found that those given the supplements recovered from the infection an average of one week faster.

“The findings of this study, which was funded by the British Lung Foundation, show great promise in speeding up the antibiotic treatment of TB for those patients which are receptive to vitamin D,” said Ian Jerrold, who led the study.

The results of the investigation add to a growing body of evidence supporting vitamin D’s role in maintaining respiratory health. Earlier studies have shown that it may also improve the symptom control of those with asthma and reduce the risk of respiratory infections.